WHY CAN'T THE CONFIRMATION SPONSOR BE A PARENT? ACCORDING TO CANON LAW THE PARENT CANNOT BE A SPONSOR BUT IT DOESN'T ANSWER WHY NOT? IT IS DIFFICULT FOR SOME FAMILIES TO FIND A PRACTICING CATHOLIC. THANK YOU MARY & THERESA

-- MARY ALBERICI (MALBERICI@HOLYANGELS.NET), September 23, 2003

Answers

To be honest with you. I never was told why a parent cannot be a baptismal or Confirmation sponsor, and I never really wondered. I thought about it and could not come up with a strong answer, so I went looking for one for you. I found two comments (one from a priest, one from a diocesan office) on the Internet, but I'm not sure that you will find them to be really strong, convincing answers. [Actually the second one is not about parents, but about spouses and fiances, but maybe it will provide a clue.]

(1) "According to the prescription of Canon Law for sponsorship, the individual who is acting as the sponsor cannot have a bond or connection to the individual which is prohibitive. Just as a spouse cannot be a sponsor to his or her husband, a parent cannot serve as a sponsor to his or her child for the sacrament of baptism or confirmation."

(2) "While it is allowed that a spouse or fiancé be a sponsor, it is not suggested or recommended. The reason it is not suggested is that the nature of the relationship between the sponsor and the candidate is that of a role model and an initiator into the community, not a relationship of equals, as it is between spouses."

On quotation #1 ... I wish that the priest had expanded on the subjective of "prohibitive" "bond or connection."
On quotation #2 ... It would seem that a parent could be a "role model and initiator into the community" and would not be an "equal."
I am led to wonder if the reason is to provide the person being confirmed with an alternate "confidante" to his/her parents -- and/or another person to whom one can turn for spiritual help after one's parents have died.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 24, 2003.

John said: 'I am led to wonder if the reason is to provide the person being confirmed with an alternate "confidante" to his/her parents -- and/or another person to whom one can turn for spiritual help after one's parents have died.'

Yes John, that's exactly right, that's why the Confirmation Sponsor isn't to be a parent.

The Sacrament of Confirmation completes our Baptism, and this is also why it is recommended that the candidate's Baptismal Godparent also acts as Confirmation Sponsor if at all possible.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), September 24, 2003.

Siblings can be sponsors too.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 24, 2003.

Thanks, Sara. Nice to see your name again, after a long absence!
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 24, 2003.

Mary and Theresa,

I assume that you are the one seeking to be confirmed. You are right, it is hard sometimes for some families to find a practicing Catholic to be a confirmation sponsor. But it is certainly not impossible. Also it is hard for someone to step out of their comfort zone to ask someone to be their sponsor, especially if you are feeling negative about "going to confirmation". Having a parent to be a sponsor would be a pretty easy way out.

If you are involved in a confirmation program (which it sounds like you are) maybe you could talk to the youth director, a facilitator, or who ever is running the program, and I'm sure that they would be very happy to help you find someone.

Remember too that confirmation is your way of saying "yes" to God (to put it simply). It is not a choice that should be forced on you. As parents we all want our children to receive this sacrament, but if you feel that you are not ready for this step in your life, you should talk to someone, preferably with your parents.

I know it's not easy. I have two children in the confirmation process myself, so I know it was not easy for them to ask someone to be their sponsor. Perhaps one solution is that if each of you has a practicing Catholic parent, that parent could sponsor the other girl.

I know you probably hear this a lot, but talk to someone, hopefully your parents. There a lot of people out there who care and would be happy to help if you just give them the chance.

Carolyn

-- Carolyn (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), September 24, 2003.

I was confirmed this past Easter thru RCIA, and one of the other women asked her mother to be her sponsor. Are the rules different for adults?

-- Amy (amy20013@hotmail.com), September 25, 2003.

I didn't know that minors were allowed to decide who their sponsor was--I always thought that the parents had the last word.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 25, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Amy and GT.

Amy, the rules are not different for adults. The pastor should not have permitted a mother to be sponsor for her daughter.

GT, when I was confirmed ('way back in around 1964), we students were permitted to choose our sponsor, though I assume my parents would have stepped in and changed things if I had chosen someone unsuitable.

I really loved the Ohio (auxiliary) bishop who confirmed me, the late John F. Whealon (later archbishop of Hartford, Connecticut).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 26, 2003.

When my older children were confirmed (1970s), my husband and I were sponsors for three of them. It was apparently approved at that time. The reasoning seemed to be that we were the ones most likely to have an interest in their eternal welfare.

-- Teresa Groebner (sundown@tier-3.net), September 27, 2003.

I, too, was confirmed in the dreadful 1970's, and my parents were my sponsors, in apparent violation of Canon Law.

Don't think it hasn't crossed my mind to be conditionally Confirmed by a real Bishop.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 02, 2003.

Teresa and Jake,

The law against parents being sponsors is in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which replaced the 1917 Code. I don't have a copy of the old code, and I don't believe it is available on the Internet. It is possible that parents were permitted to be sponsors under the old code.

Jake, if that (about conditional Confirmation) was supposed to be a joke, please know that it was not funny. And if it was supposed to be a serious comment, it is just plain silly that you could entertain a moment's doubt. Oh, wait a minute! Maybe you really weren't validly confirmed -- and if you could receive a valid sacrament now (even from a schismatic bishop), the great influence of the Holy Spirit would lead you back into Catholicism.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 02, 2003.

Jake, if that (about conditional Confirmation) was supposed to be a joke, please know that it was not funny.

It was no joke, and I'm not laughing.

And if it was supposed to be a serious comment, it is just plain silly that you could entertain a moment's doubt.

If I've reason to suspect that the Sacrament was administered invalidly (I do), then there's nothing silly about it at all. That's the whole reason Sacraments are confered conditionally, but...you knew that.

Oh, wait a minute! Maybe you really weren't validly confirmed -- and if you could receive a valid sacrament now (even from a schismatic bishop), the great influence of the Holy Spirit would lead you back into Catholicism.

If you mean back into the Novus Ordo, I'm sure that'd be the work of a spirit. I'd have quantifiable reservations about saying it would be the Holy Ghost, however.

Also, it was not a schismatic Bishop I had in mind, but one of the four Bishops of the Society of St. Pius X.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 02, 2003.